The Prevention of Terrorism Act became law after a marathon session in the Commons.
This is the fifth page of your comments about anti-terrorism laws.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
The terrorist threat does exist, but it was created by the actions and policies of current and previous Western (particularly UK and US) governments, who trained many of these terrorist groups. The threat is now greatly exaggerated to frighten the public into accepting draconian legislation and the loss of civil liberties.
Gareth Millsted, London, UK
I simply do not believe Mr Blair when he says he has secret knowledge of danger to the country. I think he cares more about elections than the lives of the people of Britain
John, Fleet, UK
Is this legislation really worth more than the lives of those who fought and died to give us the civil liberties we enjoy today?
Richard Smith, Kent, England
It's very naive to believe that we're not going to get hit at some stage. As far as I am concerned, anything that reduces that threat is worth doing. If it means locking people up that appear to pose a threat then so be it. If we don't lock them up then we should throw them out of the country. I don't think we should bother with the sunset clause either. If we're not bombed before the end of it, does it prove anything? If we are bombed does it prove anything? Probably not - so lets leave the MPs to get on to discuss more useful things and don't waste their time discussing things that should be a given.
David Thorne, London, England
I wonder if someone living in Madrid, remembering the 10 bombs, say that terrorism was "not even scary". Get real.
John Caine, Stafford, UK
The police naturally will back anything that enables them meet their politically-set targets for locking people up, they have a vested interest in this issue. Ultimately it comes down to this; do you trust Tony Blair when he says we're pretty straight guys, I can't give you any details because of the security risk but you have to trust us on this.
Harry, Consett, Co Durham The government has used every means at its disposal to try to convince the general public that we are all at risk off being killed by terrorists tomorrow. The facts are that while terrorism is a threat to Britain, this threat is no greater today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Rachel Bright, Birmingham, UK
One comment on this board states that the bill only affects a few people. There's nothing in the Bill that says that. It says anyone can be detained as long as there is "reasonable suspicion" they're involved in activities related to terrorism. Tony Blair has said it could be used on protestors at a G8 summit! This affects everyone who protests against the government. After all, as many have said on this forum, if you oppose the bill, you are giving succor to terrorists.
Paul Watson, London, UK
I am disappointed in the Blair government and proud of the House of Lords. As a lifelong socialist I thought I would never say that. The USA Patriot Act has cut deeply into the US Constitution. It was not read by many members of the House and Senate. But one provision in the anti-terror bill, that strikes fear into my heart, is the provision that silence is equated with guilt. The thought police have arrived.
John, London, now living in Atlanta, USA
Now that the law has been passed it will be interesting to see just how many people are placed under control orders. I'd also be interested to see if the law applies to those animal rights protestors who engage in acts of terror against people - if not then it shows that the whole situation is simple scaremongering.
Kirsty Sparkes, Bristol, UK
Blair and co. expect us to believe them about national security now just as they asked us to believe them about weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe them now any more than I believed them then. Their assaults on civil liberties (such as trial by jury and Habeas corpus) make me shudder.
Tom Hernon, Rochdale, England
To the correspondent that believes that terrorism in the UK is being "blown out of all proportion" (his words not mine) must be living in cloud cuckoo land. I cannot believe this debate took place on the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombing. Please stop this obsession with the rights of the few and concentrate on the safety of the masses.
Margaret Robinson, Luton, England I left the UK two and a half years ago, and each time I have returned to the UK to visit I have noticed a quite worrying change in the attitude of the people and the government. It seems as if the government is trying to cultivate the same "culture of fear" that has been prevalent for many years in the USA, which has been used to implement some highly dubious and restrictive laws. I would be the first to accept the need to catch the terrorists, particularly considering where I live (Madrid) and the fact that but for a very fortunate coincidence my wife and I would very likely have been changing trains at Atocha station at the time of the bomb blasts a year ago. But I cannot in any way, shape or form agree with the draconian measures proposed by the British government.
Paul, Madrid, Spain
There is a real terrorist threat - it is not a fantasy. I am not a lover of New Labour, but in this case Blair is right. We want to sleep peacefully at night-knowing that all potential troublemakers are carefully monitored.
Jonathan Evans, Newport
It is imperative that we preserve the separation of powers within the UK. This type of authoritarian legislation plays into the hands of terrorist groups. Its the thin end of the wedge.
Mark Gibson, Dunfermline, Fife
It's interesting that a commentator mentioned that this legislation is simply a "Nice little earner for the lawyers who defend their domain above all else". In actual fact, the whole War on Terror that this bill is part of is, in fact, a "nice little earner" for arms companies and ex-army security services and mercenaries. The Iraq war is simply a showcase for devastating weaponry and sales have rocketed since then! The arms industry does not have our "security" at heart, they are thinking only of their own profits! Persuading the world there is an insane, armed-to-the-teeth "terrorist" around every corner is a very effective way of bolstering sales.
Anon, UK
Until a year ago I'm sure the people of Madrid thought the terror threat was "not even scary".
Matthew Duckworth, London, England
The new terror laws demonstrate clearly the inadequacies of our "democracy". A massive majority concentrates immense personal power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Our only defence against what is, in effect, a limited-term dictatorship, is an emasculated House of Lords. Given the enfeebled state of Parliamentary opposition, it is essential that we have a representative Second Chamber, elected every 5 years using PR. This would not only prevent the abuse of power by a Commons majority, but would also make politics much more stimulating, interesting, and democratic.
Tom, UK
I find it absolutely outrageous that Tony Blair has inferred that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were "playing politics" over the anti-terror legislation. What they have been doing - for once - is providing the check and balance needed to protect us against this elective dictatorship. That any government with a huge majority can feel it gives them a right to drive a coach and horses through fundamental tenets of our legal and constitutional framework is alarming to say the least. I hate to say it, but it is now high time for a formal, written constitution to protect us all from politicians with hidden agendas.
Rob, England
Come election day, Michael Howard would find that more people agree with Tony Blair's stance on protecting ordinary citizens, rather than fanatics.
Anne Evans, Middlesex, England
Britain, take some advice from us Americans! In the wake of 9/11 we stupidly handed over our civil liberties to the government, thinking it would make us safe from terrorists. What fools we were! Today some of our most cherished rights - the right to protest against our government, for example - have been limited by the USA Patriot Act. Today, our volunteer Neighbourhood Watch programs, in which neighbours keep an eye out for burglars and petty vandalism, have been taken over by the Dept. of Homeland Security. We're supposed to register these neighbourhood programs and spy on our neighbours - all in the name of terrorism! And yet, last year the FBI allowed 47 terrorist suspects to buy handguns! This is insanity! Don't give up even one of your precious rights, because once taken, there is no getting them back. And they won't make you safer.
Carrie, Nashville, TN USA
These terrorist laws are being enacted in a number of countries. Personally I feel that they are not really aimed at terrorists. In Australia we have logging companies taking protestors and wilderness societies to court for millions of dollars in compensation for what is effectively community involvement loosely organised by such organisations. This is an attempt to silence public opposition. So too are these anti terror laws.
Governments know full well that the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming more visual and that civil unrest at this disparity is simmering just below the surface. Rest assured that these laws are not really about terrorist that is only the excuse it is about giving police absolute power once this civil unrest breaks out.
Dennis Newland, Perth Australia
I'm pretty sure that I have heard of these same arguments given by the Labour government for the justification and need for such an anti-terror legislation. But those were made by despotic and authoritarian regimes to justify the need for repressive and authoritarian rules. The people of this country must realise that we are on a pretty slippery slope towards abandoning the very ideals these sorts of legislations are supposed to protect. Give in to the other side and the terrorist has won not just the battle but the war against democracy. Let us not try out-do what the terrorist is doing and that is sowing fear and meting out indiscriminate justice.
Cicit Tokleh, Durham, UK
When was the last time a government said "We don't need these powers we awarded ourselves any more". When these laws come in, they're here to stay and available to be used not only on terrorists but those such as animal rights activists, followers of religion and opposition MPs etc.
Stuart, Horsham, West Sussex The Lords must continue to oppose this proposal which will destroy our freedoms. This whole episode demonstrates the great value of an upper house of long serving Lords who have much more experience than "here today, gone tomorrow" politicians. Despite having removed the hereditary Peers, the Lords continue to show much good common sense.
Roger Croston, Chester, Cheshire
If Britain had a properly democratic upper chamber with PR this measure would not pass at all. What is to make a politician care enough about justice when they could be pretending to be tough on immigrants, crime or terrorism? Surely only a jury of common people should decide if someone is a threat such that they are conspiring to commit an atrocity.
Adam Sandell, Ho Chi Minh
Surveillance evidence should be made admissible in court and all 200 suspected terrorists charged and tried in open court. Such evidence should be subject to the same rules as more conventional evidence gathered by the Police.
Richard, London, UK
It's about time that Tony Blair realised that he cannot ride roughshod over the democratic and social freedoms we all enjoy in this country. He is now asking us to believe that intelligence has led to this change in the law. However, how can we believe a man who took us to war under false pretences? The sooner Tony Blair steps aside for Brown the better, or better still we get the conservatives in!
Noel Ferguson, Runcorn, Cheshire
As with most hastily introduced measures this bill was badly drafted, has resulted in vast waste and does not really further the existing criminal law. If the Govt really wants to safeguard the UK, then time, reflection and common sense should be expended on a provision that is as water tight as possible. No! The Lords should not pass this bill. The Govt has introduced this at the very last minute as what must obviously be a political move prior to an imminent announcement of a general election. The electorate does not vote in Governments for them to play party political games!
Gerald Rees, Hertford, Herts
If the Government could guarantee that this legislation would prevent all terrorist attacks then it is worth while. As they cannot I do not see why we would erode our liberties at the whim of Tony Blair. Will this stop terrorists? Of course not. I doubt that a committed terrorist would care about being tagged if they are off on a suicide mission. This is not about terrorists, it is about the government getting unhealthy control over the people of this country. We did not have this legislation when there were real terrorist attacks, I do not see why we need it now.
Doug Parker, Trowbridge, UK I read and listen to the political prancing with interest on this subject. But the fact is the Government is introducing a law for the safety and security of the public. Would people still oppose such a law if we were back in the days of bombings and death?
Les Parry, London U.K.
One day there will be a major terrorist incident in the country. It's sad that the sound of the penny dropping will be drowned out by the political arguments and their leader's sound bites. People who set out to kill our children and women don't have any rights whatever the law says, that is our human right!
Tom Bayes, Rothwell England
Here's a scenario for you. I'm the Home Secretary and I've ordered you all to be arrested. You say you've done nothing wrong, but I say otherwise. I say you're terrorists and need to be locked up indefinitely for the good of the security of the country. You still protest your innocence but that doesn't matter to me because I don't like you. I know you're not terrorists, but who cares? The law allows me to dispose of you without any evidence so I can basically do as I please. You have no rights now because you let me sign them all away for you. You have no power and can't stop me, because the law is now on my side. In fact, I am the law: what I say goes, however right or wrong. Well, do you still think this is a good idea? I now own you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Tough!
Scotbot, Scotland
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Rob Jackson, United Kingdom
I live in a democracy where I vote for the representatives in the House of Commons. They make laws on my behalf and I want them to pass them. When I see a selected but unelected group of people in the House of Lords overturning or even having any say on such matters I move firmly to the belief that democracy is very weak and that the voter is no longer properly franchised. The law should be passed (as it is the will of the elected representatives of the country) shortly followed by the abolition of the Lords.
Cliff Leach, Andover, Hants, UK I find it ironic that supporters of the government are whining about the constitutional rights and wrongs of the House of Lord's stance whilst having no problems whatsoever with a piece of legislation that rips out the legal heart of that same constitution!
Ellie, Edinburgh, UK
There are compelling concerns being expressed from all sides that this law has not been sufficiently thought through and is simply not acceptable in its current form in the long term. A sunset clause makes a lot of sense since it allows the law to proceed now avoiding the threatened security vacuum but provides comfort that it will be revisited when the issues have been thought through - and importantly most likely after a general election has shown the country's current perspective on this government.
James Sleeman, London
Whilst Mr Blair should be advised by the police and security services, his duty is to the nation and its hard won liberties. It is a dangerous error to put more faith in experts and bureaucrats than Parliament.
Duncan Kent, London
Terrorists have won if they succeed in getting us to give up our civil rights. Why couldn't we just stick to our principles for once and take the consequences? I support resistance to the bill.
Anonymous
 |  What about the innocent who will undoubtedly get caught up in this? |
What about the innocent who will undoubtedly get caught up in this? How long will they have to languish in prison before someone decides they have made a mistake? Surely if they have enough evidence to lock them up they should go to trial and let a jury decide. What next, being sent to prison because you look like you might be a nuisance to society. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
Paul, London The biggest worry I have with these powers is the statement by the Home Secretary that they will only be needed while the terrorist threat exists. In my opinion the actions of the US administration will perpetuate just such a threat - and therefore this will prove to be just the thin end of the proverbial wedge. I have no wish to have my 8 year old son grow up in what may prove to be a police state.
Jonty, UK
Can we assume that the intelligence services supplying the "evidence" for these orders will be the same intelligence service that said there were WMD in Iraq??? I feel safer already!
Nathan Hobbs, Luton, UK
Why has the government left it so late in the day to address such an important issue? They seem to give the killing of a few foxes higher precedence than the threat of terrorism.
Shaun, Wimborne, UK
Of course the government must take steps to protect the population but locking people up without trial on the whim of a politician is dangerous. How long before other lesser crimes are added to the list? This country's heritage of freedom is too precious to loose.
Lloyd Oakley, Christchurch, Dorset
| The government wants to portray the other parties as soft on terrorism |
This battle isn't about an anti-terrorist bill. It is about politicking in the run up to an election. The government wants to portray the other parties as soft on terrorism in what is an unimaginable amount of cynicism. Such cynicism has even rubbed off on me as I wonder whether or not the government would quite gladly see the bill defeated and secretly hope for an attack just to say "told you so". Surely not?
Ian, Brechin, Scotland This has me torn - I usually object to the Lord's interference in the legal protest and say they should have been scrapped years ago - but I'm now arguing on the same side as them. By implementing this law which destroys basic human rights, we're no better than the countries we declared war on in order to "liberate them from tyranny"... The government is manipulating us into accepting this law by exaggerating the threats.
Philip Chillag, Wigan, UK
I find it hard to believe that there has not been a bigger reaction over this attempt to curtail our fundamental liberties. We should follow a similar example to those in the Ukraine, by gathering in Parliament Square until this bill is dropped in its entirety.
Rhodri Richards, London, UK
This law is designed to deal with a very small number of very dangerous individuals who will stop at nothing to destroy our society. The idea that our civil liberties are under attack is not the case. The only people who should fear it are those who would wish to remove all our of freedoms using terrorism.
Nicholas Simons, Nottingham, UK
Simple reforms to the bill changes very little. The whole thing needs to be scrapped.
Rebecca, Croydon, surrey
Since the majority of the Lords are lawyers, it's not surprising that they have entrenched views. It's their job to consider whether our law is fair and just. This isn't political to them, it's a matter of getting good law!
James, Surbiton, UK
As a member of Amnesty International, I never thought I would see the day, when I would have to write to my own government to appeal on behalf of a prisoner for a fair trial.
Ameeta Garga, London, UK
Magna Carta set out liberties that we have fought for. If we rescind any part of our liberties, then the terrorists have won by default.
S. Fearn, London
How ironic that it is the "unelected" second chamber that is upholding our rights over a democratically elected chamber that wishes to remove them until such time as they see fit to return them to us! How Tony Blair must be wishing that he had taken the time to properly stitch up the House of Lords when he had the opportunity.
Steve Richards, Dronfield, UK
It simply comes down to this - the House of Lords is being asked to choose between bad legislation hurriedly rushed through - or - the prospect of temporarily passing flawed legislation with the opportunity to fully and properly consider the issue in order to pass good solid legislation at a later date. Surely, what's the problem with that? Civil liberties are not to be given away so lightly - and this simple Sunset Clause, ensures both sides of the argument are satisfied.
Jeremy, London, UK
The comments by many people on this board are very depressing. The law the Commons is trying to pass is changing the burden of proof, one of the fundamental rights our society is based upon. People who believe that all law making should be done by politicians are frankly very naive.
David Francis, The Netherlands
People say that imposing these restrictions on rights of freedom is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. I disagree because what terrorists want is to cause panic and terror to weaken governments. I believe that these special anti-terrorist measures will prevent this.
Kevin, London, UK
This is not an anti-terror bill. It is a bill to give the Home Secretary the ability to detain anyone he doesn't like the look of, for as long as he likes, without having to give any evidence or justify his decision. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Kim, and every other dictator and tyrant in history would nod in agreement.
Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire
The ability to lock people up without first obtaining conviction will allow the UK to detain political prisoners. I guess I shouldn't be surprised this has come from a Labour government.
Chris, London, UK
Having been "round the corner" from both the Baltic exchange and London Bridge bombs, bang up suspected terrorists but only with proper evidence. The freedom in this country is to hard fought for. We don't want to import the siege mentality so prevalent in our American friends since 9/11.
Neil Turner, Beckenham, UK
I cannot understand why any politician who cares about the safety of the population puts party politics before national security. Michael Howard should rethink.
Martin Field, London. UK
We simply cannot have imprisonment without trial at the whim of politicians, judges or anyone else. That would be absolute power with the corruption that implies. Nevertheless, we cannot minimise the fact that there are fanatics who can be in a position to, and will, deliberately sacrifice their own lives to kill thousands: we have the direct evidence of New York. We must therefore insist on our right to deport doubtful people who are not UK nationals, no matter what the consequences to them.
J Westerman, Leeds, UK
This is not about terrorists, but about the basic right to a trial. If the government really wanted to get this bill enacted, they would accept the time limit, in order to clarify, and in so doing, provide legislation that protects our 800-year right to a fair trial before returning with an adequate statute later in the year.
Brian Charlick, Billericay, UK
It's wrong to hold a person simply because it is believed they are a potential terrorist. We pay the secret services to do a job. Why can't they provide evidence against these people so that they can be tried and interned lawfully?
Ian Bailey, Guildford, UK
Have we lost our collective bottle? Are we so risk averse these days that we can't tolerate the slightest danger in our everyday lives? Countless Britons have died over the centuries to give us the liberties that the government seems determined to now take away. If this bill is passed, it is an insult to those who have given their lives to give us what we have today.
Richard, Leicester
There can be no doubt that an unelected House of Lords must give way to the Commons. The Lords "the voice of the people"? Hardly. But there is an election in the offing so that the voice of the real people can be heard.
Phil, Market Drayton, UK
The problem seems to be that everyone supports doing everything to stop "them". I would ask those who support this proposal, what happens when "they" becomes "you"? Can't happen, won't happen? History suggests otherwise. There was nothing, but nothing under the original proposals to stop the Home Secretary making me a subject of an Order because, for example, he (ie Charles Clarke, does not like me writing this criticism. The fact that the judiciary is now involved, does not detract from the mindset behind the original proposals, nor from the fact that government clearly did not understand why others objected.
Graham Cable, Lightwater, UK
There are no circumstances in a free society where a citizen of this or any other country can be held without charge, trial or evidence of wrong doing. The government's cure is worse than the disease, and if I see that simple-minded statement "if you are innocent then you have nothing to fear" one more time I think I will scream.
Martin, High Wycombe, UK
| Mr Blair's argument for why the Sunset clause cannot be included is, in my view, unjustified |
Mr Blair's argument for why the Sunset clause cannot be included is, in my view, unjustified. What the sunset clause would say is that even though we recognise emergency measures may be necessary this bill goes against the foundations of British justice and undermines our way of life so we will monitor and revisit it. That's not sending a weak message to terrorists, just the opposite in fact.
Colin Wright, UK
Blair should accept a compromise that the legislation is reviewed in parliament with a fresh vote in 12 months. However the Lords should limit their defiance of the House of Commons. As much as I dislike this legislation I believe our liberties are at greater threat if the will of the elected chamber is overturned by an unelected body.
Ray, Milton Keynes UK
What on earth is going on here? The elected government needs to pass an act safeguarding its citizens' lives, and the Conservatives ("the party of law and order") want to stop it? For heaven's sake, Michael, get out of the way, and let the government do what we elected it to do: act in our interests and protect us.
Jonathan Smith, York, England
We should remember that the House of Lords is not just a collection of elderly, senile, old people. The members of the House of Lords are past politicians, lawyers, police chiefs, ex servicemen etc. These people know what they are talking about and should be listened to. I don't want to see terrorists walking the streets but if we change our society in such a way as to declare 800 years of basic rights as a citizen of this country then the terrorist have already won because they made us change the way we live our lives.
Iain Chase, Sudbury, Suffolk
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Bookmark with:
What are these?